On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 05:52:51PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 08:34:47AM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
> > Hi Jiri,
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 03:50:54PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 09:38:03AM +0100, Leo Yan wrote:
> > >
> > > SNIP
> > >
> > > > @@ -2941,30 +2942,38 @@ static int perf_c2c__record(int argc, const
> > > > char **argv)
> > > > rec_argv[i++] = "record";
> > > >
> > > > if (!event_set) {
> > > > - perf_mem_events[PERF_MEM_EVENTS__LOAD].record = true;
> > > > - perf_mem_events[PERF_MEM_EVENTS__STORE].record = true;
> > > > + e = perf_mem_events__ptr(PERF_MEM_EVENTS__LOAD);
> > > > + e->record = true;
> > > > +
> > > > + e = perf_mem_events__ptr(PERF_MEM_EVENTS__STORE);
> > > > + e->record = true;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > - if (perf_mem_events[PERF_MEM_EVENTS__LOAD].record)
> > > > + e = perf_mem_events__ptr(PERF_MEM_EVENTS__LOAD);
> > > > + if (e->record)
> > > > rec_argv[i++] = "-W";
> > > >
> > > > rec_argv[i++] = "-d";
> > > > rec_argv[i++] = "--phys-data";
> > > > rec_argv[i++] = "--sample-cpu";
> > > >
> > > > - for (j = 0; j < PERF_MEM_EVENTS__MAX; j++) {
> > > > - if (!perf_mem_events[j].record)
> > > > + j = 0;
> > > > + while ((e = perf_mem_events__ptr(j)) != NULL) {
> > > > + if (!e->record) {
> > >
> > > you could keep the above 'for loop' in here, it seems better
> > > than taking care of j++
> >
> > Actually in patch v1 I did this way :) I followed James' suggestion to
> > encapsulate PERF_MEM_EVENTS__MAX into perf_mem_events__ptr(), thus
> > builtin-mem.c and buildin-c2c.c are not necessary to use
> > PERF_MEM_EVENTS__MAX in the loop and only needs to detect if the
> > pointer is NULL or not when return from perf_mem_events__ptr().
>
> ah because u added that load_store event
Yes.
> >
> > How about change as below?
> >
> > for (j = 0; (e = perf_mem_events__ptr(j)) != NULL; j++) {
> > [...]
>
> will this work? e will be NULL for first iteration no?
>
> there are still other for loops with PERF_MEM_EVENTS__MAX used
> in the patch.. you overload the perf_mem_events access for arm,
> and add missing load_store NULL item to generic version, so there's
> always PERF_MEM_EVENTS__MAX items in the array
Yes, exactly.
> can we just use the current for loop and check for e->tag != NULL
> or any other field
Understood. This would be directive, will keep current code and will
check 'e->record' field.
Thanks,
Leo
